I have put this valuable tool link out here in the past, as have others including most recently. As is often the case this tool has been challenged by some. In order to address these challenges I contacted Dr. Peter Grimm directly, and asked him to respond to some of these challenges. He replied in detail, and also consented to allow me to share his inputs. I should think this should put the matter to rest, that this is indeed a useful tool:
“PCTRF is Peter Grimm's marketing tool” I receive very few patients from this site and have no reference or referral mechanism from this site to my center. The first page highlights the PCRSG physicians.
“He set up criteria, but there are many studies that meet the criteria that are not included. Why aren’t these included?” I welcome them to submit other studies that they think meet criteria. Every prostate cancer paper published is considered for inclusion. I did not set up the criteria. The expert panel agreed unanimously on the criteria. The most important measure of success was whether the patient was Prostate Cancer Free for the remainder of his life. The criteria satisfied this desire of the patients to know this when they discuss options. Almost all the experts are professors at major cancer centers. It was a joint effort. Everyone who looks at this data is welcome to submit papers that they think are suitable for review, this includes physicians and patients.
“The studies included are selected to make the point he wants to make,” Again ALL papers written are evaluated. The data is the data. We do not make it up. All papers and studies published since 2000 have been evaluated (>38,000) and included if they meet criteria. We scan the world literature every month again if any papers are found that should be included send them to us. It is possible to miss some but I believe we do a very thorough job.
“The data are inaccurate (see for yourself - find the 10-yr Demanes study for example).” If the data is inaccurate it is not because we misplace it, it would be because the authors were in error. We assume the authors and therefore the placement of results on the graph are accurate. We have looked at the Demanes data and actually have asked Dr. Demanes to look at it as well to ensure accuracy. You might be interested to know that Dr. Demanes is one of the expert panel members. Please ask them to explain to us why it is inaccurate so we can check their analysis. We will double check and correct if necessary. Are there any other studies that they feel are inaccurate?
“The "expert panel" is nothing more than a list of authors he used- they didn't approve all the studies as he makes it seem.” Yes they do. All have agreed to be on this panel. At each 6 month interval all of the articles that meet criteria are sent to the PCRSG for their approval. Only after their approval are the data placed on the graphs. Again if they find any errors please notify us.
“There's a reason he puts it on a website rather than publishes in a peer-reviewed journal - no respectable journal would touch it.” Actually it has been published and we are preparing an update of the 2012 article. Because the data is inspected by physicians and patients around the world it is probably the most peer reviewed data in the world.
So then I believe that answers a number of questions regarding the validity and usefulness of this tool. Here' the link again particularly for the new guys considering treatment options, one more tool to have in their toolbox of decision making:
www.pctrf.org/comparing-treatments/